If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

By engaging in activities that brought the unborn child into her womb (the child had no choice), she did actually not only give the right to occupy the womb, but with no input from the child effectively forced it there.

Some pro-choicers would argue that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy and without the consent to pregnancy the unborn do not have that right. How would you respond to that?

Don't conflate "rightful" (this is proper) with "right" (legally protected ability). If you're going to use rights language, you'd be better off saying that a person's right to life exceeds another person's right to property. In this case, the woman's body is considered her property. Even this line of reasoning will fail pretty hard if taken to it's logical conclusion, since it would mean you're required to provide certain organs to those whose life is in jeopardy without a transplant.

Someone could say that the woman's body was designed to provide life support for another person so the unborn belong there. God did not design human relationships in such a way that a person is not obligated to provide organs to other people who are outside of that person's body.

I generally discourage rights language for a reason. There's nothing concrete about rights. Even claiming that something is "God-given" will be easily dismissed by a non-theist.

It'd be better, in my opinion, to hold consent to carry a child to term as being an implicit part of consensual sex. Use of birth control minimizes the risk of unwanted pregnancy but doesn't remove the potential.

Some pro-choicers claim that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy. The consent to play baseball is not the same as the consent to get injured.

Some pro-choicers would argue that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy and without the consent to pregnancy the unborn do not have that right. How would you respond to that?

I would totally reject that argument. Anybody who is old enough to know what sex is knows what the risk of sex entails (let alone the biological purpose of sex), and that contraceptives are not foolproof.

This line of argumentation does not apply in the case of pregnancy caused by rape, so standard personhood arguments would be needed to argue against abortion there.

For what was given to everyone for the use of all, you have taken for your exclusive use. The earth belongs not to the rich, but to everyone. - Ambrose, 4th century AD

Someone could say that the woman's body was designed to provide life support for another person so the unborn belong there. God did not design human relationships in such a way that a person is not obligated to provide organs to other people who are outside of that person's body.

'Designed for' does not equate to 'must be used for that purpose'.

Originally Posted by Jaxb

Some pro-choicers claim that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy. The consent to play baseball is not the same as the consent to get injured.

There's no way to separate the two. Sex is fundamentally a procreative act even when not engaged in for that express purpose. Short of surgical removal of reproductive organs, one necessarily consents to the consequences. It's pretty much the same reason we have injury waivers when engaging in sports and other extreme actions.

David Boonin in his book In Defense of Abortion on pages 154- 164 makes the following argument. How would you respond to it?

There is a difference between voluntarily bringing about a state of affairs and voluntarily doing an action foreseeing that this may lead to a certain state of affairs. Let me give you an example of this and then let me explain how this would apply to abortion. Suppose there are two men at a restaurant- Bill and Ted. Bill wants to give the waiter a tip so he leaves money on the table. Ted voluntarily puts money on the table, but does not intend to give a tip. Why did Ted put money on the table? The money was in his back pocket and it felt uncomfortable to him so he took it out of his pocket and put it on the money. He intended to put the money back in his pocket after he was done eating. He knew that if he forgot to put the money back into this pocket that the waiter would take it. He knew that forgetting to take the money after he put it on the table would have unintended consequences. Ted finishes his meal, pays for it, but forgets to take the money that he put on the table. Since he forgot to take the money, the waiter took it.

The point of the illustration above is that Bill consented to give his money to the waiter, but Ted did not consent to give his money to the waiter even though he knew that putting the money on the table and forgetting to take it with him would have unintended consequences. This illustration is analogous to abortion. A woman who chooses to have sex and intends to get pregnant is consenting to pregnancy. A woman who chooses to have sex, but does not intend to get pregnant is not consenting to pregnancy even if she knew that having sex could lead to unintended consequences.

David Boonin in his book In Defense of Abortion on pages 154- 164 makes the following argument. How would you respond to it?

There is a difference between voluntarily bringing about a state of affairs and voluntarily doing an action foreseeing that this may lead to a certain state of affairs. Let me give you an example of this and then let me explain how this would apply to abortion. Suppose there are two men at a restaurant- Bill and Ted. Bill wants to give the waiter a tip so he leaves money on the table. Ted voluntarily puts money on the table, but does not intend to give a tip. Why did Ted put money on the table? The money was in his back pocket and it felt uncomfortable to him so he took it out of his pocket and put it on the money. He intended to put the money back in his pocket after he was done eating. He knew that if he forgot to put the money back into this pocket that the waiter would take it. He knew that forgetting to take the money after he put it on the table would have unintended consequences. Ted finishes his meal, pays for it, but forgets to take the money that he put on the table. Since he forgot to take the money, the waiter took it.

The point of the illustration above is that Bill consented to give his money to the waiter, but Ted did not consent to give his money to the waiter even though he knew that putting the money on the table and forgetting to take it with him would have unintended consequences. This illustration is analogous to abortion. A woman who chooses to have sex and intends to get pregnant is consenting to pregnancy. A woman who chooses to have sex, but does not intend to get pregnant is not consenting to pregnancy even if she knew that having sex could lead to unintended consequences.

To make the scenario analogous to abortion, David Boonin would have to insist that Ted has the right to his money even though he left it on the table. Most people would find that pretty absurd. In reality, you're out that money no matter what you meant to do with it.

Except the stakes are higher. You're not just out some money. It's not just a stupid mistake that happens to everyone. You're talking about 1) a life, and 2) a reasonable expectation of possible consequences. "I didn't know I would leave my money there" makes sense. "I didn't know a baby could happen from sex" doesn't.

To make the scenario analogous to abortion, David Boonin would have to insist that Ted has the right to his money even though he left it on the table. Most people would find that pretty absurd. In reality, you're out that money no matter what you meant to do with it.

Except the stakes are higher. You're not just out some money. It's not just a stupid mistake that happens to everyone. You're talking about 1) a life, and 2) a reasonable expectation of possible consequences. "I didn't know I would leave my money there" makes sense. "I didn't know a baby could happen from sex" doesn't.